Accroding to the author, the purpose of the sports industry of today no longer serve to solely promote that particular sport, or to promote world harmony and competition such as the Olympics Games, but instead serve as a platform for advertising, broadcasting and commercial opportunities. He cites examples such as the Premier League's proposed 39th game and the new Indian cricket league as moves motivated by individual association's desire for the possible futher revenue dervied from the sport's huge fanbase.
I agree with the author's view that the sports are now largely operational due to the immense revenue gained by commercialising the sports. Popular local sports are no longer confined to the boundaries of it countries, but instead screened on the televisions of the fans all over the world. The reason that the foreign fans are getting their weekly/daily dose of sports entertainment, is not because telecasters wants to promote that particular sports or out of the telecasters' goodwill, but due to the fact that the fans pay for the subscription. Any Leagues or franchises that claims its sole purpose of existance is to promote the sport or competition is outright lying. Reforms such as the 39th Premier League game by the Premier league possesses monetary agenda as they would stand gain income from the broadcasting rights and tickets. Many might argue that the 39th game would serve to promote the sports in foreign countries. However, i believe that the true reason behind the bold reform is to promote the sports in order to increase their fanbase for more revenue. Even the purpose of the promotion of the sports has been corrupted by the desire for wealth. Only sports for leisure, between you and me, has no other motives but for entertainment and competition. That is the true sports. Commercial sports no longer have that innocent purpose.
The pros of commercial sports far outweighs the cons. The purpose of commercial sports is to earn money but the sports do somehow indirectly promote sports due to the global exposure. Also, commercial sports allows another channel of entertainment for people who enjoy sports. Commercial sports do indeed offer coverage of professional games and entertaining sportsman. I do indulge in weekly EPL matches offered by starhub cable television, being a avid soccer fan. Furthermore, Commercial sports allows a platform for business and commercial dealings. Advertisements, transfer market, Broadcastings, Stadium Revenue etc are only some to name.
However, there are negative effects that come in different forms. The opening up of a local sports industry to the foreigners may deprived locals chances to play and thus stunting the growth of local talent. One such example is the English Premier League. Talented English players have been lacking and many attribute it to the influx of foreign talent. Also, the opening of the Indian cricket league may spell the end of the international league as players may place club before nation.
Possible future developments may include opening of several new leagues and franchises This would lead to fierce competition between very similiar leagues. One such example is the American Basketball Association (ABA) that competed with National Basketball Association(NBA), and eventually merged in 1967. However, only with the prescence of competition would lead to creative innovations. ABA invented the 3-point arc and the Slam-Dunk competition to compete with the more conservative NBA. Thus it may be a boon and a bane at the same time.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
10 ideas that are changing the world
#1 common wealth
#2 end of customer service
#3 the post-movie star Era
#4 reverse radicalism
#5 kitchen chemistry
#6 geoengineering
#7 aging gracefully
#8 curing the "dutch disease"
#9 women's work
#10 Beyond the olympics
Geo-engineering refers to the deliberate modification of earth's environment on a large scale to suit human needs and promote habitatibility.
is this technology a bane,
or boon to our society?
"For most environmentalists, the answer to that depressing litany is to keep pushing the same message harder: cut carbon and cut it now." Critics of geoengineering argued that it made more sense to avoid global warming than to gamble on risky fixes. They called for reducing energy use, developing alternative sources of power and curbing greenhouse gases.
However, "as the difficulty of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions has become harder to ignore, it is slowly emerging as an option of last resort." International efforts like the Kyoto Protocol — which the United States never ratified, and which China and India as members of the developing world never had to obey, freeing the current and projected leaders in greenhouse gas emissions from its restrictions — have so far failed to diminish the threat. Scientists estimate that the earth's surface temperature this century may rise as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit. If nobody puts in the effort to try to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, we would have to resort to geo-engineering.
Thus, i feel that it is a good idea to start thinking about how to make-use of geo-engineering in case we need it some day. Some technology include "spreading sulfur particles into the atmosphere to compensate for a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." geo-engineering could be the only way to reduce fast rising temperatures, even though there would be many disadvantages if we decide to use this new technology.
In the case of spreading sulfur particles into the atmosphere,
#1it would worsen air pollution where there are already tons of sulfur in the air being released from the coal-fueled plants.
#2this technology requires a massive capital
#3the motivation to reduce greenhouse gases in the environment would be lost
Thus, i agree with the author, "Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." Governments of different countries should start doing something about reducing greenhouse gases. Like for example, setting rules and regulations for factories to only produce this limited amount of greenhouse gases. There could be many other things the government can do and if all governments do so, maybe, we will not need to rely on geo-engineering.
#2 end of customer service
#3 the post-movie star Era
#4 reverse radicalism
#5 kitchen chemistry
#6 geoengineering
#7 aging gracefully
#8 curing the "dutch disease"
#9 women's work
#10 Beyond the olympics
Geo-engineering refers to the deliberate modification of earth's environment on a large scale to suit human needs and promote habitatibility.
is this technology a bane, or boon to our society? "For most environmentalists, the answer to that depressing litany is to keep pushing the same message harder: cut carbon and cut it now." Critics of geoengineering argued that it made more sense to avoid global warming than to gamble on risky fixes. They called for reducing energy use, developing alternative sources of power and curbing greenhouse gases.
However, "as the difficulty of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions has become harder to ignore, it is slowly emerging as an option of last resort." International efforts like the Kyoto Protocol — which the United States never ratified, and which China and India as members of the developing world never had to obey, freeing the current and projected leaders in greenhouse gas emissions from its restrictions — have so far failed to diminish the threat. Scientists estimate that the earth's surface temperature this century may rise as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit. If nobody puts in the effort to try to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, we would have to resort to geo-engineering.
Thus, i feel that it is a good idea to start thinking about how to make-use of geo-engineering in case we need it some day. Some technology include "spreading sulfur particles into the atmosphere to compensate for a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." geo-engineering could be the only way to reduce fast rising temperatures, even though there would be many disadvantages if we decide to use this new technology.
In the case of spreading sulfur particles into the atmosphere,
#1it would worsen air pollution where there are already tons of sulfur in the air being released from the coal-fueled plants.
#2this technology requires a massive capital
#3the motivation to reduce greenhouse gases in the environment would be lost
Thus, i agree with the author, "Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." Governments of different countries should start doing something about reducing greenhouse gases. Like for example, setting rules and regulations for factories to only produce this limited amount of greenhouse gases. There could be many other things the government can do and if all governments do so, maybe, we will not need to rely on geo-engineering.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Free Press: Bane or Boon?
After some INTENSIVE and EXTENSIVE research, i feel that FREE PRESS is more good than bad.
According to www.dictionary.com, free press is defined as 'a press not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideology'. Free press can bring alot of benefits to people, but it may also be harmful at times too.
As we all know, knowledge is power. However, every action has a reaction, every force has an opposing force, free press is no different. Although it is very helpful to us, some idiots might misuse this and cause all sort of problems of different scales.Take for example terrorists. They mastermind attention-grabbing attacks that will be featured in any media and through this, they succeed in planting fear in people who have seen the news. One such example is the London bombings. A few people executing the attack can strike fear in a few million people, the media is powerful isn't it? Can governments stop such incidents from being broadcasted to the people? No, because the media has the freedom to comment and release such news. But to me, power has both positive and negative connotations, it depends on how one views it.
Also, the free press has the power to intoxicate one's mind. take for example al-Qaeda and extremist movements. They have used this news channels for many years, poisoning the Muslim public’s view of the West. It's the same as propaganda or brainwashing. If something is always repeated to you,through a medium which you can trust, you will gradually be accustomed to it and believe it's true.The above points which i had raised seem to contradict my stand that the free press is a power rather than a threat. But it is not the case.
Why? Because the pros outweighs the cons tremendously. The blacksheeps can be identified and awareness can be raised on these people misusing free press. Free press is powerful because it can deliver the latest happenings to us, one example is the blogs. Blogs have been around in the 90s but it is not only till recent times where the blogs start to enjoy some popularity. And who says blogs are online diarys where people whine about their lives or post vehement comments on teachers and principals? It has evolved into another medium where people can get the latest and fatest news. Why fastest? Because they do not need editing or censorships, unlike mainstream news. One example is the 2004 tsunami, where news of it surface first on blogs, way earlier than Reuters, CNN or BBC.
Lastly, i want to comment on censorship by the governments. To many, censorship seems to be a bad thing, a breach in freedom of speech and expressions. But i feel that with government censorship, news that may cause uprising or violent reactions can be blocked off, reviewed first before publishing, which is a good thing!Thus, i feel that the free press is more of a power than a threat!
According to www.dictionary.com, free press is defined as 'a press not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideology'. Free press can bring alot of benefits to people, but it may also be harmful at times too.
As we all know, knowledge is power. However, every action has a reaction, every force has an opposing force, free press is no different. Although it is very helpful to us, some idiots might misuse this and cause all sort of problems of different scales.Take for example terrorists. They mastermind attention-grabbing attacks that will be featured in any media and through this, they succeed in planting fear in people who have seen the news. One such example is the London bombings. A few people executing the attack can strike fear in a few million people, the media is powerful isn't it? Can governments stop such incidents from being broadcasted to the people? No, because the media has the freedom to comment and release such news. But to me, power has both positive and negative connotations, it depends on how one views it.
Also, the free press has the power to intoxicate one's mind. take for example al-Qaeda and extremist movements. They have used this news channels for many years, poisoning the Muslim public’s view of the West. It's the same as propaganda or brainwashing. If something is always repeated to you,through a medium which you can trust, you will gradually be accustomed to it and believe it's true.The above points which i had raised seem to contradict my stand that the free press is a power rather than a threat. But it is not the case.
Why? Because the pros outweighs the cons tremendously. The blacksheeps can be identified and awareness can be raised on these people misusing free press. Free press is powerful because it can deliver the latest happenings to us, one example is the blogs. Blogs have been around in the 90s but it is not only till recent times where the blogs start to enjoy some popularity. And who says blogs are online diarys where people whine about their lives or post vehement comments on teachers and principals? It has evolved into another medium where people can get the latest and fatest news. Why fastest? Because they do not need editing or censorships, unlike mainstream news. One example is the 2004 tsunami, where news of it surface first on blogs, way earlier than Reuters, CNN or BBC.
Lastly, i want to comment on censorship by the governments. To many, censorship seems to be a bad thing, a breach in freedom of speech and expressions. But i feel that with government censorship, news that may cause uprising or violent reactions can be blocked off, reviewed first before publishing, which is a good thing!Thus, i feel that the free press is more of a power than a threat!
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Freedom Of Expression In Singapore
Singer Believes that the freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsiblity.
In the context of Singapore's multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author's view do you think should be adopted?
I personally feel that Zsofia Szilagyi's approach toward freedom of expression is best suited for a multi-ethnic society like Singapore. Szilagyi believes that the media should practice social responsibility, especially in a borderless and connected world, as social tensions could be easily generated with the global transmission of messages. I agree that ' Media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group.' This is especially true for Singapore, bearing a multi-religious community due to its diverse mix of ethnic originating from foreign countries.
Singapore had seen racial conflicts during its days in the federation of Malaysia.The 1964 race riots, also known as the 1964 Sino-Malay riots, saw a bloody confrontation between the two races that lead to a 36 dead and 556 injured. An estimated 3000 were arrested. The riots were a result of UMNO's communal campaign that targeted the Malays. The pro-Malay party often criticised the PAP for their alleged mistreatment of the Singaporeans Malays. This eventually escalated racial tension to the extent of the 1964 racial riots. The UMNO party communal messages were aimed to secure Malay votes in that region, however, it failed to realise that such issues were extremely sensitive and could harm the racial harmony of the island. Hence, we could see that freedom of expression without any social responsibility would only serve to destroy the delicate threads binding the Singapore society.
Learning from the experience, the Singapore government practices a certain level of censorship. Negative portrayals of religions are subjected to censorship as the government does not tolerate any actions or speech that deems to adversely affect the racial relationships. This shows that Szilagyi's beliefs coincide with the government's policy.
AHa! I win 496 words excluding italics =P Goodnights
In the context of Singapore's multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author's view do you think should be adopted?
I personally feel that Zsofia Szilagyi's approach toward freedom of expression is best suited for a multi-ethnic society like Singapore. Szilagyi believes that the media should practice social responsibility, especially in a borderless and connected world, as social tensions could be easily generated with the global transmission of messages. I agree that ' Media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group.' This is especially true for Singapore, bearing a multi-religious community due to its diverse mix of ethnic originating from foreign countries.
Singapore had seen racial conflicts during its days in the federation of Malaysia.The 1964 race riots, also known as the 1964 Sino-Malay riots, saw a bloody confrontation between the two races that lead to a 36 dead and 556 injured. An estimated 3000 were arrested. The riots were a result of UMNO's communal campaign that targeted the Malays. The pro-Malay party often criticised the PAP for their alleged mistreatment of the Singaporeans Malays. This eventually escalated racial tension to the extent of the 1964 racial riots. The UMNO party communal messages were aimed to secure Malay votes in that region, however, it failed to realise that such issues were extremely sensitive and could harm the racial harmony of the island. Hence, we could see that freedom of expression without any social responsibility would only serve to destroy the delicate threads binding the Singapore society.
Learning from the experience, the Singapore government practices a certain level of censorship. Negative portrayals of religions are subjected to censorship as the government does not tolerate any actions or speech that deems to adversely affect the racial relationships. This shows that Szilagyi's beliefs coincide with the government's policy.
Singer states that without the freedom of expression, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock. Instead, i believe that freedom of expression without social responsibility would produce the opposite effect: reverse human progress. Freedom without social responsibility would allow propagation of radical thoughts and beliefs, corrupting the mind and the society. The consequences of such are disastrous for the world. The spreading of radical islamic teachings through the different mediums such as the internet has lead to the breeding of terrorist all over the world and even in Singapore. Should Freedom without social responsibility be allowed in Singapore, the correct religious teachings would be twisted and distorted. We would be breeding radical extremist. This is a frightening scenario indeed.
In conclusion, the benefits gain from freedom of expression is meagre, which is to protect and uphold the name of democracy. The collective interest of the society is far more valuable than to ensure freedom of speech. Expression with Social responsibility in mind is not freedom of expression, as social responsiblity restricts your boundary of expression. Thus both cannot co-exist and a choice has to be made between both of them. I myself believe that expression with Social responsibility is the correct approach to adopt for Singapore, where cultural and religious pluralism exists.
AHa! I win 496 words excluding italics =P Goodnights
Saturday, March 29, 2008
freedom of speech
question: reading 3 and reading 4 cite differing views regarding freedom of expression. which view do you subscribe to and why?
I feel that there should be freedom of speech, but only to a certain extent.
From reading 3, its states that "there is no doubt freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy" i agree with this statement. This is because, decisions are usually made on a majority vote in democratic countries, however, if there is no freedom of speech, no one will voice out their opinion, and even the wrong opinion will become a right opinion. For example, the holocaust, prohibiting holocaust denial does not mean that the holocaust occured. However, it is from people's majority opinions that the holocaust ever existed.
Reading 3 also states that "the press have to understand, the do not alone create the context and lifespan of their messages." I also agree with this statement, because the press should know that for a same message, different people may receive it in a different way. For example, when the danish papers depicted prophet muhammed as a terrorist, the danish may just take it as a joke, becuase in their culture, it is okay to insult other religions. However, they do not realise that muslims can read it in a different perspective, where they see this as an insult to their religion.
From reading 4, it states that "a distinction should be made clear between what believers of one faith prefer, and what the state decides for a secular society".This may be a situation where too many people can be offended by too many things, and therefore ban everything. For example, the "da vinci code", the christians believe that it is against their faith, but that does not mean that the governement will have to ban it. The christians can protest by boycotting the film, but they cannot stop others from watching the film as others may not feel the same way as they do. Like i have mentioned above, different people can read the same thing in a different perspective.
Reading 4 also mentioned that "my own view was that i did not think any state should ban the cartoons(danish cartoons about prophet muhammed). But i did find hypocritical the newspapers' decisions to continue publishing those cartoons on the grounds of freedom of expression, in societies which had laws and norms against insult to Christians or Jews". Thus, when the press is publishing about an issue, they should consider whether it is a sensitive issue and maybe put themselves in the shoes of the muslim, where their own beliefs are being insulted. Therefore, maybe abstaining from such sensitive issues.
In conclusion, i agree with both reading 3 and reading 4, where the press can have freedom of speech to a certain extent. With freedom of speech wrong opinions can be corrected. Also, too many people are offended by too many things and one cannot stop people from saying something that offends you. However, the press have to understand that different people look at things in a different perspective, and thus existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Thus after reading both articles, it is best that the press have freedom of speech but used responsibly.
I feel that there should be freedom of speech, but only to a certain extent.
From reading 3, its states that "there is no doubt freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy" i agree with this statement. This is because, decisions are usually made on a majority vote in democratic countries, however, if there is no freedom of speech, no one will voice out their opinion, and even the wrong opinion will become a right opinion. For example, the holocaust, prohibiting holocaust denial does not mean that the holocaust occured. However, it is from people's majority opinions that the holocaust ever existed.
Reading 3 also states that "the press have to understand, the do not alone create the context and lifespan of their messages." I also agree with this statement, because the press should know that for a same message, different people may receive it in a different way. For example, when the danish papers depicted prophet muhammed as a terrorist, the danish may just take it as a joke, becuase in their culture, it is okay to insult other religions. However, they do not realise that muslims can read it in a different perspective, where they see this as an insult to their religion.
From reading 4, it states that "a distinction should be made clear between what believers of one faith prefer, and what the state decides for a secular society".This may be a situation where too many people can be offended by too many things, and therefore ban everything. For example, the "da vinci code", the christians believe that it is against their faith, but that does not mean that the governement will have to ban it. The christians can protest by boycotting the film, but they cannot stop others from watching the film as others may not feel the same way as they do. Like i have mentioned above, different people can read the same thing in a different perspective.
Reading 4 also mentioned that "my own view was that i did not think any state should ban the cartoons(danish cartoons about prophet muhammed). But i did find hypocritical the newspapers' decisions to continue publishing those cartoons on the grounds of freedom of expression, in societies which had laws and norms against insult to Christians or Jews". Thus, when the press is publishing about an issue, they should consider whether it is a sensitive issue and maybe put themselves in the shoes of the muslim, where their own beliefs are being insulted. Therefore, maybe abstaining from such sensitive issues.
In conclusion, i agree with both reading 3 and reading 4, where the press can have freedom of speech to a certain extent. With freedom of speech wrong opinions can be corrected. Also, too many people are offended by too many things and one cannot stop people from saying something that offends you. However, the press have to understand that different people look at things in a different perspective, and thus existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Thus after reading both articles, it is best that the press have freedom of speech but used responsibly.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless frontiers".
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5287&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
After reading Article 19, my first thought was in the eyes of the law, freedom of opinion and expression knows no boundaries. It does not include any restriction or acknowledgement with respect to a person's emotions. Freedom, as defined in 15 ways from dictionary.com goes
1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.the power to determine action without restraint.
4.political or national independence.
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6.exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7.the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8.ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.frankness of manner or speech.
10.general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11.the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.a liberty taken.
13.a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14.civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
These are probably why the definition of Freedom of Expression is being exploited and hence intensely discussed globally. However, in my opinion, Freedom of Expression should still be carried out conscientiously, bearing in mind, social, religious and political sensitivities. World peace is also currently promoted and I believe that Freedom of Expression and the former cannot co-exist together because achieving World Peace requires accommodative mindsets of the various parties involve. Yes, they can express their opinions ‘freely’ but the word is used loosely as the opinions are careful and not made at the expense of others.
Freedom of Expression can be applied to all forms of media, from art to speeches, letters, the Internet, the television and press. Any form that could bring an individual’s or group’s opinions out to the public. At present, Freedom of Expression is not just about expressing creativity but has unfortunately taken a form of direct attacks at sensitive issues, taking religion as an example.
Freedom of Expression is not about having biased, unsupported claims against another party but rather a discussion about an issue. Take for example, the fairly recent issue of the Danish newspaper publishing caricatures about Prophet Muhammad leading to a global uproar amongst the Muslim community. These were direct and open insults at Prophet Muhammad. There was neither a floor for discussion nor a chance for the Muslims to defend their religion.
Everything has it’s own place an time. Yes, the world can only progress if people express themselves to others, be it negatively or positively. But I think it should be conducted and moderated in a manner that does not jeopardize social stability that tends to tear at the fabric of life itself. Furthermore, Personal ‘Freedom of Expression’ should not subject others to large degrees of discomfort or take the form of causing many misunderstandings between oneself and others. At the end of the day, there should be restraint, moderation and most importantly a desire for the common and larger good of mankind, to take precedent over local and personal agendas.
386 words excluding words in italics.
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5287&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
After reading Article 19, my first thought was in the eyes of the law, freedom of opinion and expression knows no boundaries. It does not include any restriction or acknowledgement with respect to a person's emotions. Freedom, as defined in 15 ways from dictionary.com goes
1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.the power to determine action without restraint.
4.political or national independence.
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6.exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7.the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8.ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.frankness of manner or speech.
10.general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11.the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.a liberty taken.
13.a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14.civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
These are probably why the definition of Freedom of Expression is being exploited and hence intensely discussed globally. However, in my opinion, Freedom of Expression should still be carried out conscientiously, bearing in mind, social, religious and political sensitivities. World peace is also currently promoted and I believe that Freedom of Expression and the former cannot co-exist together because achieving World Peace requires accommodative mindsets of the various parties involve. Yes, they can express their opinions ‘freely’ but the word is used loosely as the opinions are careful and not made at the expense of others.
Freedom of Expression can be applied to all forms of media, from art to speeches, letters, the Internet, the television and press. Any form that could bring an individual’s or group’s opinions out to the public. At present, Freedom of Expression is not just about expressing creativity but has unfortunately taken a form of direct attacks at sensitive issues, taking religion as an example.
Freedom of Expression is not about having biased, unsupported claims against another party but rather a discussion about an issue. Take for example, the fairly recent issue of the Danish newspaper publishing caricatures about Prophet Muhammad leading to a global uproar amongst the Muslim community. These were direct and open insults at Prophet Muhammad. There was neither a floor for discussion nor a chance for the Muslims to defend their religion.
Everything has it’s own place an time. Yes, the world can only progress if people express themselves to others, be it negatively or positively. But I think it should be conducted and moderated in a manner that does not jeopardize social stability that tends to tear at the fabric of life itself. Furthermore, Personal ‘Freedom of Expression’ should not subject others to large degrees of discomfort or take the form of causing many misunderstandings between oneself and others. At the end of the day, there should be restraint, moderation and most importantly a desire for the common and larger good of mankind, to take precedent over local and personal agendas.
386 words excluding words in italics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)